Icosa vs Attachment Styles
Attachment theory captures 78% of Icosa's structural information with the strongest Bond capacity mapping and excellent trap correspondence, making it the most research-backed relational framework in this comparison family.
Overview
Attachment theory traces its origin to John Bowlby’s work in the 1950s–60s on infant-caregiver bonds and Mary Ainsworth’s Strange Situation studies (1978), which identified three infant attachment patterns: secure, anxious-ambivalent, and avoidant. Kim Bartholomew and Leonard Horowitz (1991) extended the model to adult relationships, producing the four-category framework used here: Secure, Anxious-Preoccupied, Dismissive-Avoidant, and Fearful-Avoidant (Disorganized). The Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) instrument (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) provides the most widely used psychometric measure, scoring two continuous dimensions — anxiety (fear of abandonment) and avoidance (discomfort with closeness) — whose quadrants define the four styles.
Attachment theory occupies a distinctive position in Icosa’s comparison family. It is the only framework whose primary construct maps directly to a single Icosa capacity — Bond — while simultaneously engaging Icosa’s trap architecture with the highest correspondence of any compared system. Where Big Five and DISC capture capacity surface patterns, attachment theory captures the relational depth structure that drives those patterns. The four styles describe fundamentally different strategies for regulating closeness, each producing a characteristic geometric signature in Icosa’s capacity-domain space.
What This Framework Captures
Attachment theory captures approximately 78% of Icosa’s structural information. Coverage weights:
- Capacities: 85% — Each attachment style defines a distinctive Bond state (centered, over, under, or oscillating). Open, Focus, and Move capacities are well-differentiated across styles: the hyper-activation strategy (Anxious) elevates all four; the deactivating strategy (Dismissive) suppresses three while redirecting Focus; the disorganized strategy (Fearful) destabilizes Bond and Open while collapsing Focus and Move.
- Domains: 70% — Emotional and Relational domains are native territory for attachment theory. Mental domain coverage is moderate (internal working models map to narrative coherence). Physical domain coverage is secondary (primarily relevant for Fearful-Avoidant freeze states). Spiritual domain is not addressed.
- Coherence: 80% — Attachment security predicts Icosa coherence with strong fidelity. Secure attachment maps to high coherence (65–90); insecure styles map to progressively lower ranges, with Fearful-Avoidant (20–45) showing the most severe coherence disruption.
- Traps: 75% — Highest trap coverage after Enneagram. Each insecure style activates specific Icosa traps with direct theoretical support: Codependence, Emotional Flooding, Hyperattunement, and Boundary Collapse for Anxious; Emotional Shutdown, Relational Withdrawal, and Emotional Numbing for Dismissive; Identity Dissolution, Somatic Freeze, and Cognitive Paralysis for Fearful.
- Gateways: 40% — Six of nine Icosa gateways have direct attachment relevance. Belonging (B,R) and Feeling (B,E) are the primary attachment gateways. Identity (B,M), Voice (V,R), Discernment (F,E), and Choice (F,M) are secondarily implicated by specific insecure styles.
What This Framework Misses
Spiritual domain. Attachment theory does not address meaning-making, existential orientation, or transcendent experience. Icosa’s Spiritual domain (the Empty-Filled-Possessed axis) is entirely unmapped.
Physical domain detail. While Fearful-Avoidant attachment has strong somatic correlates (freeze response, dissociation), the other three styles have only secondary Physical domain engagement. Icosa’s full Physical domain spectrum (Absent-Embodied-Overtaken) is not systematically measured by attachment instruments.
Center-level structural resolution. Icosa’s 20-center grid provides fine-grained resolution of where within a capacity-domain intersection a person’s activation pattern falls. Attachment styles describe the direction of a pattern (toward fusing, toward severing, oscillating) but not the center-level geometry that distinguishes, for example, the Bond-Emotional center from the Bond-Relational center.
Oscillation dynamics. The Fearful-Avoidant style is defined by approach-withdrawal oscillation, which Icosa can detect through its center-level oscillation detection and cycling dynamics factor. However, the static crosswalk captures only the average position — the oscillation itself is detected from assessment response data, not from the crosswalk mapping.
Confidence Methodology
Base confidence: 0.78. Attachment theory’s confidence reflects its strong research foundation (thousands of studies, multiple meta-analyses) combined with the inherent limitation of a 4-type categorical system mapping to Icosa’s continuous 20-center grid.
Per-type confidence range: 0.72–0.82. Types vary by mapping precision:
- Secure (0.82): Clean all-centered mapping; highest confidence because the centered-Bond signature is unambiguous in Icosa space.
- Anxious-Preoccupied (0.80): Strong mapping; the hyper-activation strategy produces a coherent all-over pattern that maps directly to Icosa’s Fusing/Flooding states.
- Dismissive-Avoidant (0.78): Good mapping; the deactivating strategy produces a coherent under pattern, though Focus over (intellectualization) introduces a cross-directional component.
- Fearful-Avoidant (0.72): Lowest confidence; the oscillating pattern cannot be fully captured by static capacity/domain targets. The approach-withdrawal cycling that defines this style requires Icosa’s timeline and oscillation detection features.
Psychometric note. The ECR (Experiences in Close Relationships) has strong psychometric properties (test-retest r=0.70–0.82, internal consistency α=0.90+). The dimensional scoring (anxiety × avoidance) provides more reliable measurement than categorical assignment, but the four-category model remains the most clinically useful translation framework.
Coverage Matrix
| Icosa Dimension | Attachment Coverage | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Bond capacity | 90% | Primary construct — each style defines a distinct Bond state |
| Open capacity | 80% | Hyper-activation (over) vs. deactivation (under) vs. oscillation |
| Focus capacity | 75% | Hypervigilance (Anxious over), intellectualization (Dismissive over), dissociation (Fearful under) |
| Move capacity | 70% | Protest (Anxious over), suppression (Dismissive under), freeze (Fearful under) |
| Emotional domain | 85% | Core to attachment — affect regulation strategy defines each style |
| Relational domain | 90% | Native domain of attachment theory |
| Mental domain | 55% | Internal working models map to narrative coherence |
| Physical domain | 40% | Somatic effects secondary except Fearful freeze |
| Spiritual domain | 5% | Not addressed |
| Coherence | 80% | Direct graded prediction — security = high coherence |
| Traps | 75% | 15+ traps with direct theoretical support |
| Gateways | 40% | 6 of 9 gateways directly implicated |
Type-by-Type Mapping
| Attachment Style | Primary Icosa Mapping | Confidence | Coherence Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Secure | B centered (0.85), O centered (0.75), F centered (0.70), V centered (0.70); R centered (0.85), E centered (0.80) | 0.82 | 65–90 |
| Anxious-Preoccupied | B over (0.90), O over (0.80), F over (0.65), V over (0.55); R over (0.90), E over (0.85) | 0.80 | 25–55 |
| Dismissive-Avoidant | O under (0.85), B under (0.80), F over (0.55), V under (0.45); E under (0.85), R under (0.85), M over (0.55) | 0.78 | 30–65 |
| Fearful-Avoidant | B centered* (0.85), O centered* (0.70), F under (0.65), V under (0.60); E centered* (0.80), R centered* (0.80), P under (0.55), M under (0.50) | 0.72 | 20–45 |
Capacity key: O=Open, F=Focus, B=Bond, V=Move. Domain key: P=Physical, E=Emotional, M=Mental, R=Relational, S=Spiritual.
* Fearful-Avoidant “centered” targets represent oscillating values (alternating between over and under) whose average falls near center. The oscillation itself is captured by Icosa’s coherence penalty and center-level oscillation detection, not by the static crosswalk targets.
Bidirectional Translation
Attachment → Icosa maps style to capacity cluster, then infers domain emphasis, then uses the trap correspondence to constrain trap-risk indicators. The 30% reverse discount applies. A Secure profile translates to: all capacities centered with Bond primary, Relational and Emotional domains balanced, high coherence (65–90), no active traps. Spiritual domain and Physical domain detail require direct Icosa assessment.
For insecure styles, the trap mapping provides the most clinically useful translation layer. An Anxious-Preoccupied individual translates to Bond over (Fusing), Open over (Flooding), elevated Emotional and Relational domains, with Codependence and Emotional Flooding as primary trap risks. The crosswalk identifies which Icosa traps are structurally predicted, but actual trap activation depends on the individual’s specific capacity-domain intersection — two Anxious individuals may activate different trap combinations.
Icosa → Attachment is most reliable for profiles with clear Bond-direction signatures. A person with Bond over, Open over, and elevated Emotional and Relational domains projects confidently to Anxious-Preoccupied. A person with Bond under, Open under, and suppressed Emotional/Relational domains projects to Dismissive-Avoidant. Fearful-Avoidant is identified by the combination of low coherence, under Focus and Move, and — when available from Comprehensive-tier assessment — center-level oscillation at the Bond-Emotional and Bond-Relational centers.
Icosa’s center-level oscillation detection (available at Comprehensive assessment tier) provides a unique addition to attachment classification. When both over and under probes are elevated at the same center — particularly at (B,E) and (O,R) — this signals the approach-withdrawal cycling characteristic of disorganized attachment. This oscillation signal is not available from standard attachment instruments like the ECR.
Known Gaps
Oscillation capture. The static crosswalk maps Fearful-Avoidant oscillation as “centered” — the average of approach and withdrawal. The actual oscillation pattern is captured by Icosa’s internal dynamics (cycling factor, center-level oscillation detection, coherence penalty) but only at Comprehensive assessment tier. Quick and Standard tier assessments provide the static mapping but not the oscillation signal.
ECR dimensional vs. categorical. The ECR measures attachment on two continuous dimensions (anxiety and avoidance), but this crosswalk maps four categorical styles. Individuals near the quadrant boundaries may not map cleanly to a single style. Icosa’s continuous scoring naturally accommodates this ambiguity, but the crosswalk labels suggest categorical clarity that the underlying data may not support.
Cognitive Paralysis compound requirement. The Fearful-Avoidant trap of Cognitive Paralysis (F,M) is a compound trap requiring both Focus under AND Bond under in the Mental domain. Not all Fearful-Avoidant individuals will meet both conditions simultaneously.
Identity Dissolution oscillation dependency. Identity Dissolution (B,M) requires Bond under in the Mental domain, but the Fearful-Avoidant crosswalk maps Bond as “centered” (oscillation average). This trap is only active during the withdrawal phase of the approach-withdrawal cycle — the same oscillation caveat that applies to Cognitive Paralysis applies here.
Research Basis
- Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
- Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment. Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244.
- Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment Theory and Close Relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford Press.
- Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P.R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. Guilford Press.
- Fraley, R.C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123–151.
- Icosa Mapping Study (2026). Attachment-to-Icosa structural mapping: Bond capacity correspondence and trap-pattern validation. 15+ traps with direct theoretical support. Oscillation detection validated at Comprehensive assessment tier.
Interactive Explorer
Select a Attachment Styles (Bowlby/Ainsworth) type below to see which Icosa centers it maps to. Switch between views to explore capacity targets, domain emphasis, and structural blind spots.
Secure Attachment
Comfortable with intimacy and autonomy. Balanced bonding — neither fusing nor withdrawing. Effective emotion regulation, coherent self-narrative, and mutual relational orientation.
- Spiritual domain — not addressed by attachment theory
- Physical domain detail — somatic effects secondary except in disorganized style
- Center-level structural detail — 4-style typology does not resolve to 20-center grid
- Oscillation dynamics — static crosswalk captures average position, not approach-withdrawal cycling
- Gateway-specific mechanics — attachment gates implicated but not individually measured
See how your profile translates
Take the Assessment →